4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In May 1989 a private individual brought an action against Mr M.M. before the Pest Central District Court, asking the court to establish that she was the owner of certain movable property and real estate.
6.  Between May 1989 and November 1992, the District Court held eleven hearings, heard several witnesses and appointed a real-estate expert.
7.  On 5 November 1992 the plaintiff requested the District Court to hold a hearing. Subsequently, the District Court appointed a forensic psychiatric expert, in order to examine the defendant’s mental state. The expert submitted her opinion on 23 June 1993, establishing that the defendant’s capacity to conduct legal acts was limited.
8.  On 2 July the District Court ordered the competent authority to appoint an ad hoc guardian for the defendant.
9.  On 9 December and 18 January 1994 the District Court held hearings. On 19 January 1994 the ad hoc guardian was discharged from his duties.
10.  On 28 February 1994 the defendant died. On 7 March 1994 the District Court established that the proceedings were interrupted.
11.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant entered the proceedings as the defendant’s heir.
12.  On 24 October 1995, 4 July 1996, 21 November 1996, 23 January 1997, 14 March 1997 and 14 May 1997, the District Court held hearings and heard witnesses.
13.  On 16 June 1997 the plaintiff modified her action.
14.  On 15 September 1997, 25 November 1997, 23 March 1998, 26 June 1998 and 3 November 1998, the District Court held further hearings and heard witnesses.
15.  On 1 February 1999, upon the District Court request, the plaintiff submitted a preparatory paper which contained a question to be answered by the real-estate expert.
16.  On 19 February 1999 and 22 February 1999, the District Court appointed real-estate and movable property experts. The real-estate expert attempted to carry out an on-site inspection. Since the applicant failed to appear, the inspection had to be repeated on 28 September 1999. The real-estate expert submitted her opinion on 4 October 1999.
17.  Subsequently, the case was transferred to another judge of the District Court.
18.  On 8 October and 11 November 1999 the parties filed observations.
19.  On 22 March 2002 the District Court informed the parties that they could submit further written observations on the expert’s opinion. On 30 May 2002 the District Court held a hearing. Both parties submitted preparatory documents to the District Court.
20.  On 26 July 2002 the District Court ordered the real-estate expert to supplement her opinion. The expert complied with the order on 25 November 2002.
21.  On 8 April and 24 June 2003 the District Court held a hearing. On 23 April 2003 the District Court requested the movable property expert to supplement his opinion. Since the expert failed to comply with the Court’s request, it fined him. On 29 August 2003 the District Court, upon his request, released the expert from his mandate. On 9 September the plaintiff requested the District Court to appoint another movable property expert.
22.  On 23 August 2003 the District Court appointed another expert who submitted his opinion on 24 January 2004.
23.  On 16 September 2003 and 18 February, 30 March and 25 October 2004, 14 February, 11 April and 20 May 2005 the District Court held hearings.
24.  On 30 May 2005 the District Court delivered its decision. The plaintiff appealed.
25.  On 6 April 2006 the Budapest Regional Court partly modified the first-instance decision.